Neetu Sharma complainant has filed the present complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking necessary directions to the respondents to pay Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% and the O.P’s may also be burdened with Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, physical agony alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- in the ends of justice.

2.       That the case of the complainant in brief is that the Complainant is having account with PNB/OP.NO.4 having FD of Rs. 1,00,000/- for 3 yrs. and maturity amount is Rs.1,22,000/- that, for renewal of FDR She went to PNB in Sep-2018 where she met Sunita agent of OP 1 to 3.After conversation the complainant agreed to get the policy on her allurement and took one policy having premium of Rs.20,000/- annually. She also showed faith on said Sunita who is agent of PNB Met Life. It is further alleged that, the bank officials told that they have made the FD of Rs.80,000/- of the complainant after breaking her FD of Rs.1,22,000/-  and two installments of Rs.20,000/- each annually has been paid to OP NO.1 to 3 for the policy. It is alleged that the complainant also receive one policy having no.22678388 dated 29.Sep, 2018 from PNB Met Life its annual premium amount is Rs. 20,000/- and the premium amount is payable for 10 years. The complainant is household lady and having no source of income. It is alleged that after 2/3 months she receive phone call from OP. NO 1 to 3 that the premium of Rs.80,000/- is due. She never get any such policy. The complainant from the said officials on telephone came to know that one policy having no.23071110 of Rs. 80,000/- per year premium was issued in favour of complainant on 2 Nov, 2019. The complainant never applied and received any such policy, as such the complainant is not able to pay huge premium amount. The complainant if received any such policy, she must avail her Free Look Provision period of 15 days and shall return the policy but no such policy was received ever by the complainant. That the complainant also met the other officials of OP’s but they are not making any payment of Rs.80,000/-. It is alleged that, there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP’s who misused such policy without the consent of the complainant and even never sent the policy. It is further pleaded that, the complainant is too much physical and mental harassed due to their act and conduct. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3  who appeared through their counsels and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that, the complainant has no cause of action to the file the present complaint. It has been pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case. The parties have to lead his/its evidence by examining the witnesses and the said witnesses are to be cross examined by the other party. It is further pleaded that neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause of action against the opposite party. It is further pleaded that replying opposite party floats the Insurance Schemes for the public in general with prior approval of the (IRDAI). It is further pleaded that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and in the present case insurance company herein acted as per the mandate given to the life assured in proposal form and terms of policy and issued insurance policy and took all decisions in conformity of insurance terms and conditions. It is further pleaded that the complaint is devoid of any merits and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the opposite party and hence complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is further pleaded that the complainant has failed to set up a nexus b/w the damages claimed as compensation and litigation cost in the complaint. It is further pleaded that in policy it is clearly mentioned that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdrawn/return the policy within 15 days i.e. under Free Look Provision. It is further pleaded that the complainant has paid two annual premiums consisting of Rs.20,000/- in policy no. 22678388 whereas in policy no. 23071110 only initial premium of Rs.80,000/- has been paid through bank account auto debit since the respective dates of inception of above mentioned policies. The renewal premium payment as declined by complainants’s bank due to insufficient balance and opposite party sent a letter dated 04.09.2020 to the complainant. Similarly, letter dated January 08, 2021 was sent to the complainant for timely making the payment of premium renewal of policy no. 23071110.It is further pleaded that the complainant has failed to make out prima-facie case against the opposite parties. The reliefs claimed by the complainant in his complaint are denied, false, unsustainable and without any merits. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed in the above mentioned facts.

4.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party no.4 who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that, the complaint as against the answering opposite party is not maintainable in the present form as no services were ever hired by the complainant from answering opposite party at any point of time relating to the alleged matter in question. It is further pleaded that, answering opposite party is a separate entity doing only banking business and have no concern with party no. 1 to 3 in any matter. As above said the complainant is not the consumer of answering the opposite party regarding the matter in question in any matter and thus the complaint is not maintainable against it at all. It has been further pleaded that on due date of said FD the complainant must have visited the bank but regarding her dealing with said Sunita is not in the knowledge of answering opposite party in any manner. The complainant might have got the policies in question due to her own independent conversation with the said agent of PNB Met Life and answering opposite party is not concerned in any matter with the same. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

5.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant (Ex.CW1/A) alongwith other documents (Ex.C-1).

6.       Ld. counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kamaldeep Sagar (Ex.OP 1-3/A) along with other documents (Ex.OP 1-3/9).

7.       Evidence of OP.No.4 filed in the way of affidavit of Sanjeev Sanwal (Ex.OPW-4/A).

8.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 filed, and we have heard the counsels for the parties in detail.

10.     To prove her case complainant has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit and copy of policy of insurance No.22678388 valid from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. It is case of the complainant that except this policy no other document has been received by the complainant from opposite parties No.1 to 3. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have placed on record both the policies i.e. bearing No. 22678388 with premium of Rs.20,000/- issued on 04.10.2018 and second policy bearing No.23071110 issued on 31.10.2019 with premium of Rs.80,000/- per year. The only contentions of the counsel for the complainant is that the second policy No. 23071110 allegedly issued on 31.10.2019 was never received by the complainant and as such she could not availed 15 days free look period.  However, track consignment was issued by the department of posts Ex.OP1-3/7 shows that the said policy document has been delivered at the address of the complainant on 15.11.2019 meaning thereby that the complainant was having 15 days free look period upto 30.11.2019. The present complaint has been filed on 26.02.2021. The policy of insurance also lapsed on account of nonpayment of second installment of premium on 31.10.2020. Complainant has not been able to explain nor it has been pleaded that the complainant made any correspondence with the opposite parties regarding non receipt of policy of insurance. Although, it is mentioned in the complaint that complainant came to know about the policy No.23071110 of Rs.80,000/- from the officials of the opposite parties but the complainant has not mentioned any date as to on which date she received the information. The complainant has not been able to explain that w.e.f. 30.11.2019 till 26.02.2021 he lodged any complaint regarding issuance of wrong policy of insurance by the opposite parties.

11.     From above discussion and evidence on record complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.             

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                       President. 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

July 19, 2023                                                Member.

*YP*